The myth of QB contracts

[MacReady]

Just now, Matts4313 said:

The point

Your head

 

 

Reread the post I just made and try again. **ITS NOT THAT THEY WON THE YEAR  THEY HAD A BIG CAP HIT** ITS THAT THEY SIGNED A HUGE CONTRACT, AND WON ON THAT CONTRACT.

 

How can I state this in any other way that is more clear??

No, I get what your point is just fine.  Your point is just stupid. 

 

[MKnight82]

None of this means Dak is worth an expensive extension.

[Matts4313]

Let me try one other way @Outpost31. You are a Packers fan I think? Lets say the Packers do some funky accounting make Arods contract like this:

1. 12
2. 5
3. 5
4. 25
5. 30

And you win the superbowl both years at 5%. But the cost of that is the 2 years over 25%. 

1. Would you say that contract is worth it? Yes or no? 

2. Do you recognize that it also would prove your "Dont pay more than 10%" is factually correct, as the cap was 5% in those specific years. But in reality, you won because you had Arod on a contract that averages 15% a year? 

[MikeT14]

3 minutes ago, MKnight82 said:

None of this means Dak is worth an expensive extension.

Part of me had this in the back of my mind the entire reading of the thread lol. 

[Matts4313]

7 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

No, I get what your point is just fine.  Your point is just stupid. 

 

Ive literally just given you examples of multiple superbowl contenders/winners that all prove my point is correct. And that your counter of focusing on 1 specific year is shallow and not based in any sort of reality.... 

[Soko]

7 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

That you dont read thoroughly when you dont agree with the thread title?  

Nah, these are essentially the same threads. Only difference is this thread likely won’t see the “lol” moment that the last one did - you know, with the Titans upsetting two teams with their run game, Ravens leading offense with a rushing attack, Niners getting to the SB with run>pass, Chiefs winning the SB in large part thanks to D-Will, etc. 

You're trying to educate us peons with 4 minutes of google searches in an attempt to...I guess substantiate the “smartest guy in the room” mantra? Shrug. I’ll pass. 

[Matts4313]

1 minute ago, MikeT14 said:

4 minutes ago, MKnight82 said:

None of this means Dak is worth an expensive extension.

Part of me had this in the back of my mind the entire reading of the thread lol. 

Well, he hates Dak. And he brings up Dak in every single thread I make. But this post is about all QBs. Not about any one specific QB. 

Its not a Dak thread, I promise. Hell, apply it to the Wentz extension if you want to keep it in the division. 

[MacReady]

Just now, Matts4313 said:

Ive literally just given you examples of multiple superbowl contenders/winners that all prove my point is correct. And that your counter of focusing on 1 specific year is shallow and not based in any sort of reality.... 

What do you want?  Yes, it's possible to win a Super Bowl after giving your QB a big deal.  Here's where it matters though:

You are restricting yourself from winning in years of that deal where your quarterback's hit is over 11%. 

A solution?  Pay your QB 40% of the cap in the first year to make the cap hit around 8% the rest of the years.

Sure.  Congratulations.  You've cracked the code. 

The problem is that when there is parity in the playoffs, your best bet is to NOT pay your QB over 10% of the cap. 

The average cap hit for Super Bowl winning quarterbacks over the past 24 years is 6.6% of the cap. 

And these are all elite quarterbacks.  You think the Cowboys can win with DAK PRESCOTT making 9-14% of the cap? 

[MacReady]

Just now, Matts4313 said:

Let me try one other way @Outpost31. You are a Packers fan I think? Lets say the Packers do some funky accounting make Arods contract like this:

1. 12
2. 5
3. 5
4. 25
5. 30

And you win the superbowl both years at 5%. But the cost of that is the 2 years over 25%. 

1. Would you say that contract is worth it? Yes or no? 

2. Do you recognize that it also would prove your "Dont pay more than 10%" is factually correct, as the cap was 5% in those specific years. But in reality, you won because you had Arod on a contract that averages 15% a year? 

I really get what you're saying and I just acknowledged it in my most recent post.  Sure, you give a QB a big contract if you can mitigate that cap hit for 5 of the 6 years. 

I'd rather front load the contract.  Back loading it is a terrible idea.  Quarterback gets older, draft capital gets worse...

If the Chiefs were to give Mahomes like 40% of the cap in year 2 or so damn much that it's a forfeit year, yeah, that makes perfect sense and would probably lead to a dynasty. 

[Matts4313]

1 minute ago, Yin-Yang said:

Nah, these are essentially the same threads. Only difference is this thread likely won’t see the “lol” moment that the last one did - you know, with the Titans upsetting two teams with their run game, Ravens leading offense with a rushing attack, Niners getting to the SB with run>pass, Chiefs winning the SB in large part thanks to D-Will, etc. 

You're trying to educate us peons with 4 minutes of google searches in an attempt to...I guess substantiate the “smartest guy in the room” mantra? Shrug. I’ll pass. 

So you still didnt actually read that thread? 

Because you do know in that thread I said "You can win with an offensive strategy that focuses on running the ball. But (in 85% of games) the QB with the higher ANY/A wins the game"

 

So the Titans didnt disprove anything. Ready for facts?

Wild card round the better ANY went 3-1 (75%)

Divisional round the better ANY went 4-0 (100%)

Conference round the better ANY went 2-0 (100%)

Superbowl the better ANY went 1-0 (100%)

 

Now isnt that weird. 

[MacReady]

1 minute ago, Matts4313 said:

So you still didnt actually read that thread? 

Because you do know in that thread I said "You can win with an offensive strategy that focuses on running the ball. But (in 85% of games) the QB with the higher ANY/A wins the game"

 

So the Titans didnt disprove anything. Ready for facts?

Wild card round the better ANY went 3-1 (75%)

Divisional round the better ANY went 4-0 (100%)

Conference round the better ANY went 2-0 (100%)

Superbowl the better ANY went 1-0 (100%)

 

Now isnt that weird. 

This is a stupid statistic.  Average net yards attempt go up with less pass attempts.  Lol.  Garroppolo has 9.6 yards per attempt in the Championship.  He threw 8 passes.  Lol.

Do... Do you not understand that yards per attempt go down the more attempts?  

[Soko]

1 minute ago, Matts4313 said:

So you still didnt actually read that thread? 

Because you do know in that thread I said "You can win with an offensive strategy that focuses on running the ball. But (in 85% of games) the QB with the higher ANY/A wins the game"

 

So the Titans didnt disprove anything. Ready for facts?

Wild card round the better ANY went 3-1 (75%)

Divisional round the better ANY went 4-0 (100%)

Conference round the better ANY went 2-0 (100%)

Superbowl the better ANY went 1-0 (100%)

 

Now isnt that weird. 

 

10 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

I’ll pass. 

Like I said, you don’t make these threads for discussion. If you did, you wouldn’t be rooted so deep into your opinions from the get go, to the point you don’t concede anything ever. Nah, these are ego posts. Hell, you tagged me in here for the purpose of “being right” about something. What’s the point in engaging with that? 

[Matts4313]

7 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

This is a stupid statistic.  Average net yards attempt go up with less pass attempts.  Lol.  Garroppolo has 9.6 yards per attempt in the Championship.  He threw 8 passes.  Lol.

Do... Do you not understand that yards per attempt go down the more attempts?  

So you not only didnt read the thread; you literally dont even know what stat I am talking about?

Its adjusted net yards per an attempt. And it takes into account everything - including sacks.

 

you are lol bro. You dont read anything and just insult. 

[Matts4313]

9 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

 

Like I said, you don’t make these threads for discussion. If you did, you wouldn’t be rooted so deep into your opinions from the get go, to the point you don’t concede anything ever. Nah, these are ego posts. Hell, you tagged me in here for the purpose of “being right” about something. What’s the point in engaging with that? 

 

What is there to discuss? You dont read any of the post at all. If you are going to stay ignorant to what the thread is saying, then you really cant contribute can you?

I had a lot of discourse in the other thread. Just not with the people who didnt read it or try to understand it. 

[Soko]

Just now, Matts4313 said:

What is there to discuss? You dont read any of the post at all. If you are going to stay ignorant to what the thread is saying, then you really cant contribute can you?

I had a lot of discourse in the other thread. Just not with the people who didnt read it or try to understand it. 

*People disagree with me*

”Well that’s because they can’t/don’t read”

We get it, bro. No reason to strut the GED in everyone’s faces.